The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 10,00,000 won, and a fine of 5,00,000 won, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts in the facts charged, the Defendant did not use abusive language or descendant for the victims who are students, as described in the facts charged, and did not have taken a video image against the students’ will. Even if the Defendant used a part of stimulative expression, or the Defendant took a dynamic image, he did not have any intent of abuse against the Defendant even if the Defendant stimulating a part of stituous expression was caused by the Defendant’s act of taking a dynamic image. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on misunderstanding the facts, and thus, there is a possibility of spreading the video by posting the dynamic image.

It cannot be said that the defendant accepted the possibility of spreading the same. Even if the defendant's act constitutes the element of defamation, the content of the posted video is true, and it is reasonable to view the reality of the education site as public interest because it is recognized as being for the sake of public interest by informing the victim B, who is the teacher, of the fact that he assaults the student.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

3) The sentence of unfair sentencing (an order to attend a course of child abuse treatment for 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable. (b) Defendant B (Defendant B1) committed an act, such as when the victim’s head was taken once, as indicated in the facts charged, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, but it was for the purpose of punishing the child who committed the error, and it cannot be deemed as a physical and emotional abuse prescribed in the Child Welfare Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one month imprisonment).